• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Joe Kennedy III vs. the Sixth Amendment.

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/1063161403824132096

No survivor should be cross-examined by his or her accused rapist. Ever. Full stop.

The Constitution disagrees:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

No crime is so heinous that the Constitutional and due process rights of the accused should be ignored.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,251
Reaction score
44,129
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Agreed. Kennedy's (very) wrong.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
7,605
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/1063161403824132096



The Constitution disagrees:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

No crime is so heinous that the Constitutional and due process rights of the accused should be ignored.



Being confronted with the witnesses against you ... different from you getting to harangue the witnesses.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Being confronted with the witnesses against you ... different from you getting to harangue the witnesses.

Being confronted with the witnesses against you IS the right to "cross-examine," which is what Kennedy explicitly said the accused rapist should never have the right to do. "Ever," he said. "Full stop."

There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
7,605
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Being confronted with the witnesses against you IS the right to "cross-examine," which is what Kennedy explicitly said the accused rapist should never have the right to do. "Ever," he said. "Full stop."

There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation.


"right to be confronted with" versus "right to personally cross-examine"

LOL ... yes, there is ambiguity.

To call those the same is definitely a matter of interpretation.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"right to be confronted with" versus "right to personally cross-examine"

LOL ... yes, there is ambiguity.

To call those the same is definitely a matter of interpretation.

No, it's stating fact. That IS the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.

What there's no ambiguity in is Kennedy's statement.

Why are you trying so hard to justify whittling away the rights of the accused, to the point of trying to argue a right doesn't even exist?
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
7,605
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, it's stating fact. That IS the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.

What there's no ambiguity in is Kennedy's statement.

Why are you trying so hard to justify whittling away the rights of the accused, to the point of trying to argue a right doesn't even exist?


Why are you calling something synonymous which is NOT synonymous except after legal interpretation and precedent decided they would be counted as the same?

Those are not synonymous. Our courts have decided one implies the other, but it was definitely a matter of interpretation and could be reinterpreted.
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,711
Reaction score
13,112
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Being confronted with the witnesses against you ... different from you getting to harangue the witnesses.

Guaranteed under the law and Constitution. I am sure these types of cases have risen previously.
An accused has the right to a Lawyer or to represent themselves. That will never change.
Being questioned by the accused rapist, I am sure it is horrid for a woman. But the Judge does have discretion, and can rein in the questions asked.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why are you calling something synonymous which is NOT synonymous except after legal interpretation and precedent decided they would be counted as the same?

Those are not synonymous. Our courts have decided one implies the other, but it was definitely a matter of interpretation and could be reinterpreted.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're making **** up out of thin air in order to justify taking someone's constitutional rights away.

Why?
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,886
Reaction score
7,765
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"right to be confronted with" versus "right to personally cross-examine"

LOL ... yes, there is ambiguity.

To call those the same is definitely a matter of interpretation.

No there is only ignorance

Here is what Kennedy is opposing, “would guarantee the accused the right to cross-examine their accusers, though that would have to be conducted by advisers or attorneys for the people involved, rather than by the person accused of misconduct. If requested, the parties could be in separate rooms”
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No there is only ignorance

Here is what Kennedy is opposing, “would guarantee the accused the right to cross-examine their accusers, though that would have to be conducted by advisers or attorneys for the people involved, rather than by the person accused of misconduct. If requested, the parties could be in separate rooms”

He went well beyond the Title IX stuff. "Ever," he said. "Full stop." He unambiguously meant it comprehensively.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
7,605
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're making **** up out of thin air in order to justify taking someone's constitutional rights away.

Why?


I am not making anything up.

I am looking at the plain English. In plain English, those phrases are not the same. The courts had to DETERMINE that one implied the other. That is interpretation.

Your "it's not a matter of interpretation" stance defies plain English. "be confronted with the witnesses" is not the same as "get to ask questions". "Be confronted with the witnesses" could mean no more than the defendant having the right not to have to defend against anonymous accusations.


Someone had to INTERPRET the plain English of the Constitution to mean something more than what the plain English says.



I am not weighing in on the merit of allowing a man to harangue in court the 8-year-old child that he molested. I am simply commenting on the plain English and on your absurd claim that there was no interpretation to get us from the plain English to what our current custom is. Of course there was intepretation to get from the right "to be confronted with the witnesses" to the right to personally interrogate those witnesses.


That is all.


*stepping off this futile merry-go-round now*
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
10,972
Reaction score
5,319
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wonder if someone accused Jo of rape if he would waive his right to cross examine the assuser
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am not making anything up.

I am looking at the plain English. In plain English, those phrases are not the same. The courts had to DETERMINE that one implied the other. That is interpretation.

Your "it's not a matter of interpretation" stance defies plain English. "be confronted with the witnesses" is not the same as "get to ask questions". "Be confronted with the witnesses" could mean no more than the defendant having the right not to have to defend against anonymous accusations.


Someone had to INTERPRET the plain English of the Constitution to mean something more than what the plain English says.



I am not weighing in on the merit of allowing a man to harangue in court the 8-year-old child that he molested. I am simply commenting on the plain English and on your absurd claim that there was no interpretation to get us from the plain English to what our current custom is. Of course there was intepretation to get from the right "to be confronted with the witnesses" to the right to personally interrogate those witnesses.


That is all.


*stepping off this futile merry-go-round now*

Good grief. What I said wasn't up to interpretation was Kennedy's ironclad absolute statement. It's not.

And no court had to interpret the Sixth Amendment as covering the right to cross-examination, because they all understood exactly what it meant.

That YOU don't understand it doesn't make it ambiguous. You're just wrong.

(You might as well be arguing about whether or not the right to a speedy trial applies if a defendant doesn't literally "enjoy" it. It's just about as dumb.)

And by saying:

I am not weighing in on the merit of allowing a man to harangue in court the 8-year-old child that he molested.

That's exactly what you're doing, purposely wording it in such incendiary terms.

You clearly are hostile to the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination, at least in certain contexts.

I say again -- there is no crime so heinous that the constitutional and due process rights of the accused should be ignored. And that is to YOUR benefit as much as anyone else's.
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
28,428
Reaction score
22,361
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
He's flat out wrong here, we got that right for a reason and do not need anyone trying to take it away in any case.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
7,605
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm not aware of any jurist who'll allow one to "harangue" a witness, or even just rant in general.
-- Right to confront witness

Your link shows that it took until 1895 before this thing which the OP said was not a matter of interpretation was finally established in writing.

:shrug:

If it was so unambiguous, it probably wouldn't have needed to have been legally enunciated 104 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Just saying.



P.s., your link also shows that parts of this supposedly unambiguous subject have still been under legal debate relatively recently.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your link shows that it took until 1895 before this thing which the OP said was not a matter of interpretation was finally established in writing.

No, it was simply the first Supreme Court case in which the matter came up, in which the Court explored that part of the Amendment for the first time. They didn't find anything new. They simply stated what had been understood, tracking all the way back to Magna Carta.

If you actually read the case:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/237/

You'll see them saying exactly that. (Though you, of course, are likely to refuse to see it.)

Tell me -- what do YOU think the right to be confronted by witnesses against you is for? Explain.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
7,605
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, it was simply the first Supreme Court case in which the matter came up, in which the Court explored that part of the Amendment for the first time. They didn't find anything new. They simply stated what had been understood, tracking all the way back to Magna Carta.

If you actually read the case:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/237/

You'll see them saying exactly that. (Though you, of course, are likely to refuse to see it.)

Tell me -- what do YOU think the right to be confronted by witnesses against you is for? Explain.


I explained already. I will humor you and explain one more time.

It could be as simple as being entitled to know who your accusers are. No secret affidavits and kangaroo courts where you never know who is charging you.

And Xelor's link does show the issue was still being discussed and revised for some two hundred years. And that the right of the accused to cross-examine the witness in person is indeed not immutable.


And that's all the attention you're getting from me on this today. Your agenda is blinding you to the meaning of what should be simple English words. That leaves no foundation for intelligent discussion.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I explained already. I will humor you and explain one more time.

It could be as simple as being entitled to know who your accusers are. No secret affidavits and kangaroo courts where you never know who is charging you.

:roll: And simply "knowing" this helps you, how?


And Xelor's link does show the issue was still being discussed and revised for some two hundred years.

It developed over a span of time, yes. But by the time the Sixth Amendment was written, everyone, including any judge, knew exactly what it meant.


And that the right of the accused to cross-examine the witness in person is indeed not immutable.

The point was never that there may have been recognized, well-crafted limits to the right.

The point was that A) Kennedy wants to take it away, completely, from people accused of rape, and B) you're sympathetic to that. Both of which are dangerous, and indeed, contemptible.


And that's all the attention you're getting from me on this today.

Your participation in this thread was always 100% voluntary.


Your agenda is blinding you to the meaning of what should be simple English words. That leaves no foundation for intelligent discussion.

irony_meter.gif


I LOLed.
 
Top Bottom